1,516 reputation
512
bio website marty-green.blogspot.com
location Canada
age
visits member for 4 years, 4 months
seen 1 hour ago

Dec
7
comment How far back can you trace a photon?
Then your argument is with Richard Feynmann, not me. I more or less quoted what he calls "Proposition A" (Vol. 3, chapter 1-5 in the Feynmann Lectures)...the very proposition which he concludes is false. According to Feynmann, it is simply not true that the photon must have passed through either one slit or the other.
Dec
7
comment How far back can you trace a photon?
You start by saying you are going to "keep it simple" but then you throw in so many extraneous complications that your answer is all but incomprehensible. Let me list the things you bring up that have nothing to do with the question: the motion of the star relative to the earth, the expansion of space, existence of gravitational "wells" (?), the redshift, the blueshift, and the standard model. And why do you have a second potassium atom...and why do you think there are potassium atoms inside the detector? And how do you "see" an absorption line with a photomultiplier?
Dec
7
comment How far back can you trace a photon?
If there is no energy spread out, then the energy must be concentrated. And in your "standard quantum mechanics", we have local conservation of energy, which means the energy must be somewhere. So you're saying the photon existed from the moment it left the potassium atom. I suppose you're saying if it encountered a double slit along the way, it must have passed through either one or the other of the slits.
Dec
7
comment How far back can you trace a photon?
It seems like I'm saying it didn't become a photon until it entered the detector, and you're saying it was a photon from the moment it left the potassium atom.
Dec
7
answered How far back can you trace a photon?
Dec
6
asked How far back can you trace a photon?
Nov
12
comment Solar vs lunar gravity: inverse square law
The force you caluculate for the sun is much greater. I'm just not sure it's a force you can actually FEEL.
Nov
12
answered Solar vs lunar gravity: inverse square law
Oct
30
answered What is supposition of equilibrium? How do Rayleigh, Jean know the electromagnetic wave in equilibrium behave?
Oct
18
answered Where did Schrödinger solve the radiating problem of Bohr's model?
Sep
10
answered How to find the amplitude of magnetic field of this plane wave
Aug
29
comment How can I stand on the ground? EM or/and Pauli?
Yes, you're right about that. I think what I meant was that it's not exactly the same s-orbital as the hydrogen atom. It's a different shape, because the electrons push each other apart. But regardless, I'm still don't know why I'm the only guy who thinks Heisenberg is more important than Pauli when it comes to stopping us from falling through the floor.
Aug
27
answered Radiation emission and absorption
Aug
27
comment How can blackbody radition be explained by quantization?
Yes, it is funny what you can learn when you apply the mathematics to a hypothetical case. I'm glad you agree.
Aug
27
answered How can blackbody radition be explained by quantization?
Jul
15
comment How can molecule of a few angstroms absorb visible light of a few hundred nanometers?
The theoretical result whereby the absorption cross-section of a small classical antenna is on the order of the wavelength squared is a not-so-well-known classical result that nevertheless appears in such textbooks as Kraus (from the 1930's) and you can verify it on Wikipedia. It is normally derived by pure mathematics; however, on my website I give a physical picture of why it makes sense: see marty-green.blogspot.ca/2011/10/crystal-radio.html
Jul
15
comment How can molecule of a few angstroms absorb visible light of a few hundred nanometers?
I've wondered what might be possible with very small antennas using piezo-electrics, but not because of the dielectric constant. My thinking was that if the capacitive element had a mechanical oscillation in tune with the electrical frequency, you wouldn't need huge inductors to tune the antenna. But then I don't suppose it would have to be piezo-electric...just any old dielectric that was highly tuned to the right mechanical frequency could work. Maybe that's what they are doing with ceramic chips?
Jul
14
comment How can molecule of a few angstroms absorb visible light of a few hundred nanometers?
This is not a bad answer, but it is unnecessary to talk about "lossy" components in understanding the classical antenna. We can imagine everything made of superconducting wires; and then, as user21748 correctly notes, it is not so much the absorption cross-section which goes down as you make the antenna smaller, but the bandwidth. And to be technically correct, it is not exponential but cubic: that is, if you make your ideal lossless antenna half as big, your Q factor (wL/R) and with it your bandwidth goes by a factor of 8.
Jul
14
comment How can molecule of a few angstroms absorb visible light of a few hundred nanometers?
@leftaroundabout: Not unless you have a microphone that is super-sensitive to low B-flat but rejects low A and low B. Which is what the atom does.
Jul
14
comment How can molecule of a few angstroms absorb visible light of a few hundred nanometers?
I don't know anywhere you'll find the analysis except on my blog. I used to think that Jaynes and Scully "semi-classical" school represented my ideas, but it turns out they don't. Did you check out the link on Crystal Radio that I posted in my answer? I go into more detail on the comparision between the Copenhagen calculation and the semi-classical analysis in a series of articles starting with this one: marty-green.blogspot.ca/2012/02/…